550 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA 



in a less definite form in 1625, perhaps owing to his employ- 

 ment at that time by the Queen of Sweden, to whom the 

 naked doctrine would have been no more attractive than to 

 James. 



For a long time, however, the doctrine was equally neglected 

 by publicists and statesmen. This may have been partly due 

 to the somewhat obscure and incidental way in which it was 

 advanced, but probably mainly to the fact that the time was 

 not ripe for its acceptance. It represented much too stringent 

 a limitation of the territorial sea to receive general assent. 

 Selden does not refer to it, and it was passed over by the 

 authors, such as Pontanus, 1 Burgus, 2 Shookius, 3 Conringius, 4 

 and Strauchius, 5 who favoured more or less extensive claims 

 to maritime dominion, while even writers who opposed such 

 claims, as Stypmannus f) and Graswinckel, 7 do not adopt it. 



The opinions of Grotius with respect to the appropriation 

 of the sea had, indeed, comparatively little influence among 

 jurists in the seventeenth century. The views which prevailed 

 in the latter part of the period are rather represented in the 

 works of two of the writers whose reputation was greatest, 

 Loccenius and Puffendorf. Loccenius, a Swedish author who 

 wrote about the middle of the century and is still quoted as an 

 authority, declared that while a nation could not acquire a 

 universal dominion over the sea, it might possess sovereignty in 

 a particular sea as far as it was under its power or dominion, 

 subject to the rights of innocent passage and navigation by 

 others ; and he cited as examples Sweden and Denmark, which 

 exercised sovereignty in the Baltic. 8 As a general rule, how- 

 ever, Loccenius held that states had jurisdiction only in the 

 waters adjacent to their coasts, for the preservation of peaceful 

 navigation; but no attempt is made by him to lay down any 

 fixed rule or limit as to the extent of such jurisdiction. He 

 merely contrasts the opinions of those, as Baldus and Bodin, 

 who contended for a wide limit of sixty miles, or two days' 



1 Discussiones Historicce de Mari Libero, 1637. 



2 De Dominio Seven. Genuensis Jteipub. in Mari Liyustico, 1641. 



:i Imperium Maritimum, 1654. 4 Dissertatio de Imperio Maris, 1676. 



5 De Imperio Maris. 6 Jus Maritimum, 1652. 



7 Maris Libert Vind. adv. P. B. Burgum, 1652 ; Maris Liberi Vind. adv. 

 0. Welwodum, 1633. 



8 De Jure Maritimo et Navali, lib. i. c. iv. Ed. 1652. 



